User talk:Flamarande

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Policy in this talk page

Under my personal policy of "easier, simpler, better" I am organizing all entries under the correct user/paragraph and will be deleting old (and only old and out-dated mail, there will be no censorship) from time to time. It´s simply better for me to notice, find, understand and eventually to answer your mail. What can I say? I am simply lazy. Flamarande 21:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome. - JustPhil 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How I did a merge

Here are some links showing how I did that merge you requested. I did it the other way round, with Transalpine Gaul redirecting to Gallia Narbonensis - if you disagree, let's discuss it at the talk page for Gallia Narbonensis. Anyway, the process (and I don't claim this is ideal or 'correct') was:

The important point is to link to both articles in the edit summaries (links not shown above, but are shown if you follow the links). That makes it clear what is going on. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps; Western Europe

Hi Flamarande, sorry for not replying earlier - i've been away for a week and a bit. I don't have any real wisdom to share with the maps - I just loaded it up in an image editing program (GIMP in my case, since I was on a linux box, but even Microsoft Paint will do) and used the "bucket fill" tool, etc. Then saved as a png format to avoid losses. Good to see there's a couple of us trying to hold the fort on "AU" over at Western Europe ;-) Deuar 13:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider

Flamarande, thanks very much for your contributions to the article and to your valiant attempts during the AfD's. I knew it was a losing battle, but I certainly appreciate your support. I think you and I both agree that notability requirements for fictional subjects are extremely silly for a web-based encyclopedia... I mean, what harm is it if there are 10,000 articles on webcomics? They don't "clutter" anything as the user is not likely to stumble across one unless he's looking for it, and the AfD's take up more bandwidth than the actual article does. Obviously there are many who disagree. But as you say, not a big deal, just a thwack to the ego.

Hope TylerXKJ doesn't get in too much trouble.

I'll be happy to answer your questions, either here or in the Outsider Forum. You may get quicker response using the Forum. - Ariochiv 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire

Hello! I have put your suggestion about the purple maps to a vote at Talk:Byzantine Empire, and I have left messages on the user pages of those people who contribute to Byzantine Empire topics. Please place your vote as soon as possible! Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ref desk

Would you please take the time to read over the reference desk guidelines: "The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting your own opinions. Editors should rather attempt to represent fairly and without bias significant views published by reliable sources." Your recent additions on the Humanities desk ([1], [2]) are, i think, not really compatible with that guideline.—eric 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What you think is altoo irelevant to me. I don't like ppl who want to organize everything and censor personal opinon, and I also like to be honest so here it goes. Screw that! I, and way too many ppl, don't want a pure sterile scientific anwer. A bit of personal opinion never hurt anyone at all, and it is a part of the right of free speach. If you find fault in my two answers I can only point that Whistleblower comment about clio's answer was indeed funny and the second answer likewise (whistle somehow believed that the original questioner was going to kill civilians!). You didn't even have the impartiality and guts to complain to everybody who brakes these ignored rules, no you only complained to a single one. What kind of rules are these which ignore everybody else and pick only a single one? Arbitrary rules, that what they are.
What I really don't like is some overeager perfectionist who thinks that he is a censor and then points to some arbitrary rules as guidelines ("I am only obeying the law."). This is in my humble opinion a major flaw of Wikipedia: a "good"-minded cabal finds something wrong and then puts up some awfull rules which everybody is suppossed to obey or else... Screw that censor atittude, screw the cabals, and screw these rules. Flamarande 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Flamarande, I'd like to invite you to participate in the writing of the rules, so your concerns about them being used to censor people, or any other concerns, can be taken into account: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines. StuRat 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military career of Julius Caesar & Western Europe

Hello Flamarande, I made an addition to the above article yesterday about the fact that Caesar allowed his legions to slaughter many 1000's of innocents at Avaricum. I was surprised to find you removed it on the grounds that "there are simply no inncents in war". Please remember the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, for example. Like the Gallic War, WW2 was also a costly and unjustly started conflict. According to your teaching, one should not call those many millions of Jews and others who were slaughtered innocent at all. Do you stand by what you said? If so, please tell me why.

Also, I could not help but notice that in the Western Europe article you said that the "British Isles" was the correct name for Éire and Britain. You are wrong, and I should know for I am an Irishman. Because I am representing my country on this global scale, I cannot allow its independance to be degraded by incorrect presumptions on your, or anyone else's, part! Eoghan Ó Coisdealbhaidh (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

First of all, I think that comparing the Holocaust with the Gallic Wars is a unfair comparision FULLKSTOP. Your use of the Hitler argument means that you have lost the debate by default.
Second, I think that you are blinding yourself because of your national feelings. The most common term for the islands is currently "British Isles". I know that the Irish don't like it, but what can I say? It is the most used term. If you think that you can waltz into Wikipedia armed as a national hero I must warn you to grow a thick skin. Wikipedia is supposed to accurate, national feelings be damned. If you can demonstrate me that another term is used more often then I will gladly improve the article. Flamarande 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, you have not answered my basic question. Are you saying that even the women and children killed by the invading Romans were not innocent? Surely they can't have deserved die, especilly since the Gauls were waging a defensive war.

I am glad you dropped the Hitler-argument. Eoghan, you seem to see this isue in a simple black-white perspective. I like to think that I have studied political, and political history to a considerable extent and I know that nothing is truly simple. The world and everything is difficult, complex, and most of all relative. I like to honest so here it goes: Avaricum was resisting with arms against Ceasar and his legions who needed supplies desperatly (the Romans were in true danger of starving). Somebody who resists with arms isn't an innocent. Unarmed women and children were considered part of the resistance. Everbody knew the rule: If you resist in a siege ('as the ram touches the wall') no mercy whatsoever will be granted. This rule was known troughout Ancient Antiquity (and it was also known in the middle ages). Of course I (who have been brought in the modern world with modern values and morals) wouldn't condone the ensuing massacre. But I can understand why the Romans slaughtered everything in the first resisting city. As awfull as it sounds: it was simply effective. On average the next citie(s) surrendered immediatly.
To judge the ppl of classical antiquity (or the middle ages) by modern standards and morals is simply being naive, self-rightous, political correct, and hipocrit (despite of that everybody does it, but that is clearly POV). All these precious morals quickly fall aside in the hell of war. How about the bombing of Dresden? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If such actions are not senseless (have a true military purpose - ending the war asap) they are justified. Hey, it's War, and War is Hell (if the mob truly thought on this truth they wouldn't scream: WAR! quite so often). Civilians are even today too many times valid military targets. It begins with the workers of the factories of war material, then with the workers of war supplies (food for the troops and the civilian population), and alltoo soon it goes on and on. In the end you bomb whole cities. I know that in our increasingly political correct world such a view is considred amoral, evil, etc. Such persons dream of a pretty pink 'civilized' war where everybody follows 'the rules' and they get amazed that in reality that nobody follows them. They don't study history or war and then scream about its brutality. Let me point out that in Iraq war nearly 200 persons are dying every single day and nobody gives a rat's ass. So much for the value of modern political correctnes and morals. Flamarande 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As regards the Western Europe article, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others." (see:"Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005)

Furthermore, “A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: 'The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.'” (see, Sharrock, David. "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain", The Times, News International, 3 October 2006.)

Indeed, In October 2006, Irish educational publisher Folens announced that it was removing the term British Isles from its popular school atlas from January 2007(see, Áine Kerr,"Folens to wipe 'British Isles' off the map in new atlas", Irish Times, 2 October 2006). With all this in mind, and in the interest of neutrality, I think it would be best if you replaced the term 'British Isles' with '(Great)Britain and Éire(or Ireland)', since 'This is very common and almost entirely uncontroversial' British Isles naming dispute. Eoghan Ó Coisdealbhaidh , 7 May 2007.

And for all that the Irish goverment officials does not own the English language in any significant way. Neither does the English goverment or the academia. The particular term is used by the majority of the ppl who use the english language. Therefore that term is 'official'. I particularly like the statement: We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. Last time I checked your country is located in the same archipelago which is shared by Ireland (Irish) and the United Kingdom (english, scots, northern Irish?, Manx, and the Welsh). Again, I like to be honest: That statement is simply stupid. A state and its ppl can be politicaly and economically independent from another state. But geographically independent (mixing geography with common politics) ??? That's utter nonsense and no doubts about it a statement from a politician (a lie told for political purposes). Flamarande 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) You are not understanding. Wikipedia (supposedly) doesn't use neutral terms, it uses accurate terms.

Flamarande, I must say I am enjoying our debate. I'm sure you'll agree that without such discussions we wouldn't learn anything at all. I realise that it's wrong to judge the ancients by our (supposedly) Christian morals. Still, if we are to learn from humanity's past mistakes and achievements, we must distill the good from the bad, and denounce such incidents as at Avaricum as shameful. In the modern world too, I agree we cannot turn a cold shoulder to Iraq (and I think that more than 'nobody' give a rat's ass). I'm not the sort of person who opens a history book just to arbitrarily condemn ancient antiquity, and then close it to ignore the injustices of our time. Also, just because most people do ignore them dosen't mean we should go with the flow and accept war as being an integral and expected part of humanity. Finally, I will say there is no point in studying the history of warfare if we don't learn from it, in order to do something good and worthy in our world. As for Britain and Ireland, I cannot accept the term 'British Isles' as being accurate. Just because the Irish, who say Britain and Ireland, are outnumbered by those who don't, dosen't mean it's inaccurate. After all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, you said 'Wikipedia (supposedly) doesn't use neutral terms'. However, on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I read that All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

[edit] Holy Roman Empire

Hello Flamarande, in regards to the Roman Empire's offical end date, i'd have to disagree and say it was in 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor Francis II abdicated. It is the offical date the Roman Empire was erased from the maps. Before then the words Roman Empire (including the "Holy" suffex of course) appeared on maps, and that is noteable. Weather or not the Holy Roman Empire was the true heir to the Western Roman Empire is debateable. I personally view it as the medieval Western Empire, and the Byzantines were the medieval Eastern Roman Empire. Both governments reconized the others Imperial rule, they just remained seperate states, even though were were failed attempts to combine them.

So with that said, and even if you personally dont really reconize the Holy Roman Empire as a true western heir, it is fact that 1806 is the date the state was taken off maps, and it should be considered to have that 1806 date be the "offical" Roman Empire end.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask where the Roman Empire was on the "hypotical" map from 396 to 800? Where was it in 477? If you assume the name of somebody else who has died 400 years ago and get everyone to accept your name as true does that make you the same person? I don't think so. Flamarande 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persia

Well the long time gap had happened when Alexander the Great took over the Persian Empire, after many many years when the empire was reassembled it was the Persian Empire again. Empires can be ressurected, they have on occasion, and besides my point was the Roman name on maps, which in 1806 it was on, either way if the Holy Roman Empire was or was not a true heir to Ancient Rome.

  • I feel it was Germany plus fragments of the ressurected Western Empire mutated in a medieval form, although on wikipedia my opinion isnt whats important, whats important is the Roman name was offically taken off maps in 1806, and that is notable enough to consider having the offical end date of the empire not in 476, or in the 1400's at the fall of the eastern or Byzantine Empire, but 1806 when the last emperor Francis II stepped down to Napoleon.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Flamarande, about what you said:

"May I ask where the Roman Empire was on the "hypotical" map from 396 to 800? Where was it in 477? If you assume the name of somebody else who has died 400 years ago and get everyone to accept your name as true does that make you the same person? I don't think so. Flamarande 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

Its not relavent that the Western Roman Empire was or was not on maps in 477. In 1806 the Roman Empire was on maps, making it the offical date Rome was taken off maps, and ceased to be a political entity. This is all regardless if you dont consider the Holy Roman Empire to be the true heir of the Western Empire!

Do you think the Barbarians just killed all the Romans after 476? The answer is no of course, most of the Germans that took power were already Romanized. The first two German rulers after the fall, Odoacer, and Theodoric the Great even answered to the Byzantine emperor. Roman tradition, and culture didnt just go extinct, as we know because our own society, and cultures in the western world are heavily influenced by Rome.

The people still considered themselves Romans after the fall of Rome, and told there children, and grand-children they were Romans too, this went on for generations, but also while mixing with the Germans too (if you want, check out Romano-Germanic). The Roman populace was never wiped out, and it is debateable that Roman civilian loses were minimal. 300 plus years later there was still a Roman essence among the people.

When things had settled down after all the Choas, and Charlemange was able to unify most of Western Europe again, it was right to revive the empire in the west, he was crowned King of the Romans, and took the title Imperator Augustus. The Byzantine Empress Irene must have reconized Charlemange's Empire as the true Western heir, or she would never have agreed to marry her son to his daughter.

There are many recorded Byzantine and Holy Roman Royal marriages, which further prove that the Byzantines reconized the Roman state in the west. One good example is when in 972, when the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces publicly recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano.

Saying that the Holy Roman Empire didnt have any real claim to be the the Western Roman Empire is ludacris. But thats not even the debate here! the debate is the offical end of the empire, and that date is 1806 when the last Roman Emperor, Francis II, was abdicated by Napoleon, and Rome, as an Empire was taken off of maps after being on them for millennia.

The history of Rome spans thousands of years of the existence of a city that grew from a small Italian village in the 9th century BC into the center of a vast civilization that dominated the Mediterranean region for centuries, to a Romano-German empire marking the beginning of the Middle Ages!--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, I respect your opinions, and can see why you would consider 395 AD as the offical end date. We both have our diffrent views on this subject, and I believe both beliefs have high levels of credibility. Now some people might frown on my belief of the Holy Roman Empire as being the heir to the Western Empire, but here are some notable scholars that do agree with me.

Lucien even went as far to say: "The Roman Empire did not fall, did not decline, it just transformed but so did the Germanic populations which invaded it."

I believe this transformation, was just the Medieval Roman Empire, of course the Holy Roman Empire didnt mirror the empire of Augustus, it was a mutation of that empire. Just like the Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire in the east. I have always believed that because of slander, and fear, from other countries in the west, the Holy Roman Empire was given a bad name in history. People must know that Spanish, French, and English rulers would denounce the Holy Roman Empire as not being Roman, because these sperate states, that were once in the Roman Empire, didnt want to be absorbed into the revived Western Empire, and they knew if they aknowledged the Holy Roman Empire's Translatio Imperii that would give the Emperor the right to reclaim Roman lands. So yes my friend, it was all political.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 04:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noticeboard

Hi, I've moved your report to here, generally for issues like yours the AN/I page is the appropriate place to bring that up. ornis (t) 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

replied on my talk. ornis (t) 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Restore the affected articles? I'm not sure what you mean. Any changes can be changed, but don't edit war and if there's disagreement you can't solve easily consider dispute resolution avenues. You can revert any changes, but be aware of the three revert rule and discuss things on the talk page. If there's anything else, just ask. WilyD 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: China

The operative sentence in Wikipedia:Naming conflict is "describe, don't prescribe" which is a very wise three words. The guidelines on all things China was written before that guideline existed and they are very prescriptive. The sentiment there that the lone word "China" can never refer to the PRC is old and very resistant to change. There is a strong KMT base on Wikipedia, as well as many Westerners have a poor response to the PRC. Real world politics intersect here and a very bloody war was fought over it. Take a long term view towards making changes, and participate in discussions on the guidelines. SchmuckyTheCat

I support your idea. But it runs into the issue of the pre-1947 ROC..., etc. But I think it can be easily solved if all editors agree with us. For example the pre-1947 ROC can be called Nationalist China or something like that.--Jerry 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Filing an RfC is not a bad idea. It should be worded as "What is the most common use of the term 'China'?" and not get into the rest of the dispute. The rest of the dispute is purely politics and our guidelines don't allow politics to be part of the decision, even though that has been the operative situation there for years. SchmuckyTheCat
I started a new discussion here, I hope you can give some more of your opinions too. Thanks.--Jerry 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to do what you're trying to do for a pretty long time until I just got tired of debating with the other people and that I could really tell that Wikipedia is KMT-based. Now I do support the DPP, but I'm not trying to make it more "Pan-Green," I'm just trying to make it less confusing but at the same time neutral (which is nearly impossible on this issue). So I'm willing to participate in this even though I don't really have any Chinese history books, my only knowledges of the ROC/PRC stuff come from internet and my prior learnings.
My point is that I think ROC should be split into two articles, Taiwan and Republican China (I don't really care about PRC being moved), because I don't like it when people confuse Taiwan with China. (I don't think I would ever turn to their side, don't worry) But keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a battleground, that's a policy, so we should keep cool and stuff.--Jerry 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, see this, I think we can work toward that direction.--Jerry 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] carthaginian women

Hi there, that's ok and I would be happy to help. As for hamilcar's daughters. Well i believe one was "Salammbo". However since her life has been popularised in myths and plays we can never be too sure of the facts, but it's probably worth a mention. There was also Sophonisba, daughter of hasdrubal. Ciriii 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

Hi there. I was reading the China (chinese civilization) article's talk page discussion about the whole naming issue and I agree with most of what you've said. Moving the PRC to China or redirecting China to PRC will not be easy, hovewer, and I think we could try another approach: I think we should aim for objetives that can be achieved in the short term before atempting bolder moves. Specifically, I belive we can realistic try to get the current china article renamed to Chinese Civilization and then get China to redirect to the desambig page. This proposition had plenty of support on China's talk page and has the big advantage of being able to evade the whole PRC/ROC debate that will ultimatelly stall any naming change propositision effectively maintaining the status quo. After we achive this and with the Chinese civilization article out of the way the issue of redirecting China to the PRC article can tackled more straightforwardly. PS: The same thing should be done to the korea article that is in the same situation as the China one. Ireland is different since the island exists regardless of the political entities...

What do you think? I want some feedback before opening this discussion on the articles talk pages. RIP-Acer 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Acabei de ver em sua user page que voce fala portugues. Eu sou brasileiro entao pode me responder em portugues se preferir. É sempre bom encontrar um lusofono por estas bandas :D Abraços RIP-Acer 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman View of Transition

thnx for u response, friend. u pretty much confirmed what i thought. it really makes me wonder, why do we bother making two articles or speaking of two entities (Roman Republic versus Roman Empire) when really all that changed was the politics. Thnx for clearing that up 4 me. My expertise isn't really in Rome or even Europe, but I find it all very interesting. take care and happy holidays. Scott Free (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NC-ZH

Hi Flamarande. There's a new discussion on the ROC naming issues again at WP:NC-ZH. I hope you will participate in the discussion. Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#About_ROC.2FTaiwan_Naming_Conventions.--Jerrch 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Flamarande! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Response on my talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your name?

Hi Flamarande, what iinspired your user name, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that – it does have a medieval flair, something knightly, about it. Cheers, JR

[edit] Good for you. Don't forget that the reference desk is not a soapbox. And nor are you supposed to post diatribes.

Been saving that up, have you? Well done. I don't quite see how it applies, however. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very civil response. In fact, it appears that your comment was directed at User:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM rather than me. Apologies. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire, please take a look at the talk page. Tourskin (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)